On 24 Feb 2000, David Megginson wrote:
> David Wang <dwang@mitre.org> writes:
>
> > On a related topic, I'm also wondering about the health of AF -
> > where does it stand now?
>
> It's pretty-much dead in the water for now -- almost nobody uses AFs
That's true. I'm almost nobody (if not actually nobody) and I use
Afs:)
> or even bothers to defend them
This is the saddest part. The W3C is gung-ho on namespaces, and an
integral part of the boosterism surrounding this bogosity is the
obligatory potshot at AFs. It is one thing to critique AFs (which
none of the glib productions with the W3C imprimatur have even come
close to managing), it's quite another to disparage with "official"
sanction and/or approval. The myths proliferate, the shibboleths get
parroted, and soon, nobody even wants to know.
Yes, I consider the intellectual leadership of the W3C thoroughly
compromised. (A year of 'constraining the solution" and "existence
proof" and whatnot, in the way of smug evasive euphemisms over the
namespace issue, on the xml-sig taught me a lesson I won't forget.)
AFs were bad-mouthed for no good reason.
> who wasn't part of the original DSSSL or HyTime design process.
Well, I wasn't.
> It's a shame, because they were a nice idea.
Yes. Not complete, but quite useful.
Arjun
***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/threads.html
***************************************************************************